 |
|
| General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Metabolic Syndrome/diet
I recently went to a continuing education seminar on Metabolic Syndrome.
Some of the "stats" mentioned were that: -In America, 90% of food dollars are spent on processed foods. -In 1900, sugar consumption was 12 pounds/year, but in 2000 that had reached 150 pounds/year. So much of that can certainly explain why we're seeing young kids developing Type 2 diabetes (something unheard of in years past) and obesity is soaring. -Each ounce of regular soda contains 1 teaspoon of sugar. Kinda makes that 32 ounce BigGulp more unappealing, huh? -The average time spent preparing dinner for a family of 4 was 15 minutes. -By 2010, 75% will not know how to cook. While of course I do buy processed foods (even bread is "processed"), I have to say that I do NOT spend anywhere near 90% of my food dollars on them. But I can certainly believe that many do. For years I've worried about the diets of children who don't drink near the quantity of milk (or consume equal quality veggies for that needed calcium) yet drink multiple sodas a day. We're going to see a huge problem with osteoporosis in coming years. The bones kids and teens develop in their youth are going to be what they have to work with in later years. One comment the speaker made that impressed me significantly was "The more time spent in the kitchen, the healthier you'll be." Consider that it takes more time (yet not necessarily excessive, IMO) it takes to prepare food, the less "processed" it is. What are we in such a rush about (night after night after night??)... more television and computer time? Perhaps cooking should be viewed as an activity to share, rather than something just to get through (heat it up, chow down, hit that couch early) I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but this topic is concerning to me. Goomba |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Goomba38 wrote: snip > -In 1900, sugar consumption was 12 pounds/year, but in 2000 that had > reached 150 pounds/year. So much of that can certainly explain why > we're seeing young kids developing Type 2 diabetes (something unheard of > in years past) and obesity is soaring. snip I'm in no position to challenge the statistics you cite, but 150 pounds of sugar per year is bumping up on 1/2 pound per day. If accurate, that number is stunning. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .com>,
"Kevin_Sheehy" > wrote: > Goomba38 wrote: > > snip > > > -In 1900, sugar consumption was 12 pounds/year, but in 2000 that had > > reached 150 pounds/year. So much of that can certainly explain why > > we're seeing young kids developing Type 2 diabetes (something unheard > of > > in years past) and obesity is soaring. > > snip > > I'm in no position to challenge the statistics you cite, but 150 pounds > of sugar per year is bumping up on 1/2 pound per day. If accurate, that > number is stunning. > There are people that live on soft drinks. At roughly 28 grams per oz., you can calculate how many 12 to 20 oz. sodas someone has to drink per day to meet that number when you look at the number of sugar grams per drink!. An average 20 oz. bottle of coke has nearly 2 oz. of sugar in it. It's unreal! I think that soft drinks are probably the #1 evil in the nation when it comes to sugar consumption. I rarely, if ever, buy them and usually get the sugar free. Also count toaster strudels, donuts for breakfast, sweet stuff for lunch and sugar laden deserts. It's not difficult to imagine eating 8 oz. per day when I watch what my (often obese) co-workers at work eat on a daily basis! I probably consume only a couple of lbs. per year max, but I take GREAT pains to avoid the stuff. -- K. Sprout the MungBean to reply "I don't like to commit myself about heaven and hell‹you see, I have friends in both places." --Mark Twain |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .com>,
"Kevin_Sheehy" > wrote: > Goomba38 wrote: > > snip > > > -In 1900, sugar consumption was 12 pounds/year, but in 2000 that had > > reached 150 pounds/year. So much of that can certainly explain why > > we're seeing young kids developing Type 2 diabetes (something unheard > of > > in years past) and obesity is soaring. > > snip > > I'm in no position to challenge the statistics you cite, but 150 pounds > of sugar per year is bumping up on 1/2 pound per day. If accurate, that > number is stunning. It is. Much of it is due to overconsumption of sodas. High fructose corn syrup is still sugar. You get 8 teaspoons of sugar (about 40 grams) in each 12 ounce can of soda. Lemonade and southern-style "sweet tea" aren't much better. Cindy -- C.J. Fuller Delete the obvious to email me |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Cindy Fuller" > wrote in message ... > In article .com>, > "Kevin_Sheehy" > wrote: > >> Goomba38 wrote: >> >> snip >> >> > -In 1900, sugar consumption was 12 pounds/year, but in 2000 that had >> > reached 150 pounds/year. So much of that can certainly explain why >> > we're seeing young kids developing Type 2 diabetes (something unheard >> of >> > in years past) and obesity is soaring. >> >> snip >> >> I'm in no position to challenge the statistics you cite, but 150 pounds >> of sugar per year is bumping up on 1/2 pound per day. If accurate, that >> number is stunning. > > It is. Much of it is due to overconsumption of sodas. High fructose > corn syrup is still sugar. You get 8 teaspoons of sugar (about 40 > grams) in each 12 ounce can of soda. Lemonade and southern-style "sweet > tea" aren't much better. > > Cindy People don't just get a 12 oz can, they get the super mega gulp at the convenience store. That be 40 oz. but some is ice. Once in the morning and once in the afternoon makes probably 60 oz soda, or about 6 oz. Throw in the sugar in the donut, the candy bar snack in the afternoon, and look at the sugar in the commercial pasta sauce..... In fact, look at the sugar in most processed foods... del cecchi |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Cindy Fuller" > wrote in message ... > In article .com>, > "Kevin_Sheehy" > wrote: > >> Goomba38 wrote: >> >> snip >> >> > -In 1900, sugar consumption was 12 pounds/year, but in 2000 that >> > had >> > reached 150 pounds/year. So much of that can certainly explain why >> > we're seeing young kids developing Type 2 diabetes (something >> > unheard >> of >> > in years past) and obesity is soaring. >> >> snip >> >> I'm in no position to challenge the statistics you cite, but 150 >> pounds >> of sugar per year is bumping up on 1/2 pound per day. If accurate, >> that >> number is stunning. > > It is. Much of it is due to overconsumption of sodas. High fructose > corn syrup is still sugar. You get 8 teaspoons of sugar (about 40 > grams) in each 12 ounce can of soda. Lemonade and southern-style > "sweet > tea" aren't much better. > > Cindy > Snapple is pretty bad too. Barely even tastes like tea. -T |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 16 May 2005 03:05:25 GMT, "skoonj"
> wrote: > >"Cindy Fuller" > wrote in message ... <snip> >> It is. Much of it is due to overconsumption of sodas. High fructose >> corn syrup is still sugar. You get 8 teaspoons of sugar (about 40 >> grams) in each 12 ounce can of soda. Lemonade and southern-style >> "sweet >> tea" aren't much better. >> >> Cindy >> > >Snapple is pretty bad too. Barely even tastes like tea. > >-T Yeah! I don't understand the popularity of that stuff. It's so watered down it barely tastes like anything. Sue(tm) Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kevin_Sheehy wrote:
> Goomba38 wrote: > > snip > > >>-In 1900, sugar consumption was 12 pounds/year, but in 2000 that had >>reached 150 pounds/year. So much of that can certainly explain why >>we're seeing young kids developing Type 2 diabetes (something unheard > > of > >>in years past) and obesity is soaring. > > > snip > > I'm in no position to challenge the statistics you cite, but 150 pounds > of sugar per year is bumping up on 1/2 pound per day. If accurate, that > number is stunning. > How many liters of coke per day? The concentrated syrup used to make that stuff is 25% or so sugar. (it is one of the biggest input costs in making coke) J. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jack Masters wrote:
> Kevin_Sheehy wrote: >> Goomba38 wrote: >> >> snip >> >> >>> -In 1900, sugar consumption was 12 pounds/year, but in 2000 that had >>> reached 150 pounds/year. So much of that can certainly explain why >>> we're seeing young kids developing Type 2 diabetes (something >>> unheard >> >> of >> >>> in years past) and obesity is soaring. >> >> >> snip >> >> I'm in no position to challenge the statistics you cite, but 150 >> pounds of sugar per year is bumping up on 1/2 pound per day. If >> accurate, that number is stunning. >> > > How many liters of coke per day? The concentrated syrup used to make > that stuff is 25% or so sugar. (it is one of the biggest input costs > in making coke) > > J. Maybe they should go back to putting cocaine in Coke; every coke addict I've ever seen was skinny as hell. (of course I'm joking) Jill |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"jmcquown" > wrote in message . .. > Jack Masters wrote: > > Kevin_Sheehy wrote: > >> Goomba38 wrote: > >> > >> snip > >> > >> > >>> -In 1900, sugar consumption was 12 pounds/year, but in 2000 that had > >>> reached 150 pounds/year. So much of that can certainly explain why > >>> we're seeing young kids developing Type 2 diabetes (something > >>> unheard > >> > >> of > >> > >>> in years past) and obesity is soaring. > >> > >> > >> snip > >> > >> I'm in no position to challenge the statistics you cite, but 150 > >> pounds of sugar per year is bumping up on 1/2 pound per day. If > >> accurate, that number is stunning. > >> > > > > How many liters of coke per day? The concentrated syrup used to make > > that stuff is 25% or so sugar. (it is one of the biggest input costs > > in making coke) > > > > J. > > Maybe they should go back to putting cocaine in Coke; every coke addict I've > ever seen was skinny as hell. I agree, but ban it from kids. > (of course I'm joking) I ain't ',;~}~ Shaun aRe |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Alex Rast wrote: > The biggest thing, therefore, that could be done to solve the problem is to > force companies to pay employees a living wage on reasonable hours of work. So, how's that going to work, exactly? How long can companies pay workers more than the work is worth before the company goes bankrupt? Suppose my value added to to the company is $10,000 per year (I'd like to think it's considerably more). The company could only pay me about $5,000 (plus overhead, benefits, taxes, etc.) just to break even. Forcing them to pay me minimum wage (about $10,300 these days) would give them a $300 loss just on my labor. I suspect the company would just do without my services in that case. And, to bring this back on topic (sort of), I like to limit my weekday dinner prep to 30 minutes or so--just 15 minutes more than the average quoted elsewhere. That half hour gets us a healthful and delicious home-cooked meal for two, often utilizing leftovers from larger weekend cooking efforts. Cindy Hamilton |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Alex Rast" > wrote in message ... > Making the problem worse, even in order to make ends meet, many families > not only have to have a 2-income household but both earners have to work > overtime. This further cuts into their time at home, time that often times > for the woman must thus be spent entirely in doing whatever are the most > critical domestic chores - and make no mistake, it's only the most > critical > chores that they have the time to do at all. Again, even if the man is > more > broad-minded and contributes 50% of the domestic workload - or all of it - > often there's too little time for too many chores to be done. People are > forced to compromise where they can. But in the US today, people's desired standard of living is much higher than it used to be. Back in the 50's our family had one car, no ac, lived in a small house, maybe 800 square feet, never ate out, and a vacation was driving to visit family in wisconsin (and baling hay when we got there). Now a starter home has 2 or 3 bathrooms, central air and is about 2000 square feet. People eat out half the time and have two or three cars. They travel to Las Vegas, Florida, Mexico commonly. Then complain about how hard they have to work. > > The biggest thing, therefore, that could be done to solve the problem is > to > force companies to pay employees a living wage on reasonable hours of > work. > We've reverted to the situation at the turn of the century. Eventually > frustrations will come to a head and force legislation - much as they did > then, and now as then it will probably be the women who lead the charge > because they are the ones upon whose backs the disproportionate burden > tends to be falling. Once the companies raise wages, they will have to increase prices to get the money to pay the wages. Customers will not be able to buy as many of their products because of the high prices. Jobs will be eliminated due to lack of demand. Now the people will have no wage instead of not a living wage. If there are no trade barriers, product will come in from offshore. If there are trade barriers, things will go on for awhile with overpaid workers (cf GM and Ford) until such time as trade barriers are removed or the difference gets large enough. > > -- > Alex Rast > > (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Katra wrote:
> There are people that live on soft drinks. Due to shuffle of assignment, I eat lunch on a different ward. My lunch a couple bottles of dressing and everyone's 2 liter bottles are all that is in the fridge. It is a veritable forest of coke, etc. in there. How much in cups is a pound? Sugar is pretty dense. blacksalt |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Alex Rast wrote:
> at Sun, 15 May 2005 16:37:05 GMT in >, > (Goomba38) wrote : >>-The average time spent preparing dinner for a family of 4 was 15 minutes. > > > This is a symptom of a basic social problem: most companies don't pay a > living wage. Few households can get by on a single income and thus there's > nobody who can dedicate themselves to the domestic chores. Furthermore, > traditional patriarchal expectations mean that the woman of the house is > expected to tackle the domestic chores *over and above* the work she does > now out of house. In a large percentage of families, the man's contribution > to domestic chores is at most a token effort in spite of the fact that the > woman is now working out of home, too. And domestic tasks don't simply go > away - they still have to be done. So working mothers pull double-duty. Is > it any wonder that they rely on prepared meals? By the time they get to the > end of their day they're ready to drop. > > Making the problem worse, even in order to make ends meet, many families > not only have to have a 2-income household but both earners have to work > overtime. While I entirely agree, I would add that I am shocked at what people spend money on: ATV for *small* children, big SUV's on a single mother secretary's salary with vanity tags, 100$ hair cuts. I have no idea how these people get by...after I pay extra towards my mortgage principle, and stuff my retirement accounts to the max, I have to scrap to make airfare to the family reunion. An old farmer told me, once, IT AIN'T WHAT YOU EARN but what you DON'T SPEND, and I find it wiser and wiser the older I grow. blacksalt OBFood: Be sure to teach your kids to cook! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
at Wed, 18 May 2005 21:16:27 GMT in >,
(Del Cecchi) wrote : > >"Alex Rast" > wrote in message .. . >> Making the problem worse, even in order to make ends meet, many >> families not only have to have a 2-income household but both earners >> have to work overtime. > >But in the US today, people's desired standard of living is much higher >than it used to be.... I think this compounds the problem, inasmuch as people will work harder to remain in the social class in which they are (or desire to see themselves being) - compromising certain activities for the sake of material image, but I think that the dominant mode (in terms of the number of people involved) is that of families working 2 jobs to make ends meet. >> The biggest thing, therefore, that could be done to solve the problem >> is to >> force companies to pay employees a living wage on reasonable hours of >> work.... >Once the companies raise wages, they will have to increase prices to get >the money to pay the wages. Customers will not be able to buy as many >of their products because of the high prices. Jobs will be eliminated >due to lack of demand. Now the people will have no wage instead of not >a living wage. If there are no trade barriers, product will come in >from offshore. If there are trade barriers, things will go on for >awhile with overpaid workers (cf GM and Ford) until such time as trade >barriers are removed or the difference gets large enough. One possible scenario, but you need more information to determine what will happen. Since wages have gone up, the demand will shift up as well (i.e. the quantity demanded at *any* price will increase) Thus depending on how much the company decided to increase prices with the higher wages, the quantity demanded could increase or decrease. It's therefore not a given that jobs would be lost. Now, if jobs *do* diminish, then one is dealing with a tradeoff: fewer jobs at higher pay or more jobs at lower pay. Here you do encounter a difficult moral choice - which is socially preferable: supporting a smaller population with a good livelihood or a larger population living at a meager subsistence? The question there boils down to - which is more morally valuable - the quality of life or simply life at any price? However, if there is an absolute tradeoff, this also implies that there is a fixed pool of money to go around - and that thus it is not a growth economy. Under a capitalist model a zero-growth economy is disastrous anyway, so the situation you envision presupposes a recessionary period in any case. And yes, it is necessary to have certain levels of trade barriers to support high wages. These trade barriers can and should go into effect against nations with disproportionate wages. What this encourages is the formation of parity trading blocs - i.e. groups of countries on more or less a similar economic plateau trading freely while controlling trade between countries of different economic plateaus. And this is a workable system. The EC is a good example of a successful trading bloc operating on this principle. It also works well for 3rd world nations. If these nations also form trading blocs, collective strength gives them more trade bargaining power against 1st world nations, especially for the commodities which these nations supply, and helps them to improve their own internal economy. So 3rd world nations aren't under the pressure of 1st world nations to produce for 1st world markets, and 1st world nations don't face outsourcing pressures. @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, (Cindy Hamilton) wrote : > >So, how's that going to work, exactly? How long can companies pay >workers >more than the work is worth before the company goes bankrupt? If a living wage corresponds to paying workers more than they're worth, the company has made a fatal strategic mistake - they're producing a product for which there isn't enough market. A product which can't be produced profitably except by sacrificing a living wage for the employees is one whose value is so low as not to justify production. If employees must be paid a pittance, then their income and thus capacity to buy those products goes down, and this is the beginning of a downward spiral - reduced wages diminish the demand, reduced demand decreases the price that can be charged, diminished prices put pressure on the company to decrease wages still further. It's therefore necessary that the wage level necessary to realise a profit on the product be above some critical line in order to prevent this downward spiral. And this wage level is, by definition, a living wage - that wage at which the worker's capacity to buy a product is equal to their need (or if you prefer, their "natural demand") for the product. Once you get into that downward spiral, the company is forced to try to sell products of ever-diminished value to consumers whose hard economic realities mean they need to make sacrifices in terms of quality or suitability in order to make ends meet. This is in fact what's happening in the food industry - people have no choice but to select foods of lower quality because with little time on their hands, convenience becomes such a priority that the extra price that they would have to pay for quality isn't something they can make up out of pocket and therefore the only alternative is to take something of lower quality. Hence McDonald's. Poor dietary choices are being dictated in large part by economic realities. -- Alex Rast (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >,
(Alex Rast) wrote: > People often don't realise how much sugar seems to be added > gratuitiously to almost all processed foods. Things that don't need > sugar (pizza, bread, spaghetti sauce) are often loaded with it. Even > canned stews typically contain sugar. And salad dressing! I do not understand sugar in a vinaigrette. Regards, Ranee -- Remove Do Not and Spam to email "She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13 See my Blog at: http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >,
(Alex Rast) wrote: > This is a symptom of a basic social problem: most companies don't pay > a living wage. Few households can get by on a single income and thus > there's nobody who can dedicate themselves to the domestic chores. I don't buy this at all. There are few people willing to sacrifice the big house, the nice car, the vacations, the fancy clothes/makeup/shoes, the dinners out, the movies, the cable, the neat gadgets, the latest software, the newest trinkets, the _STUFF_ so that one person can stay home. Then, not having that person home increases other expenses, like commuting costs, extra gasoline, wear and tear on the car, business attire, childcare, etc. Not having time to check sale prices and shop wisely increases reliance on whatever is available at whatever cost and convenience foods which are more expensive and less healthful. Not having someone at home to make the meals, means more drive through dinners. It is more honest to say that having someone stay at home is no longer a real priority for most western people. Regards, Ranee -- Remove Do Not and Spam to email "She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13 See my Blog at: http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Del Cecchi"
> wrote: > But in the US today, people's desired standard of living is much > higher than it used to be. Back in the 50's our family had one car, > no ac, lived in a small house, maybe 800 square feet, never ate out, > and a vacation was driving to visit family in wisconsin (and baling > hay when we got there). Now a starter home has 2 or 3 bathrooms, > central air and is about 2000 square feet. People eat out half the > time and have two or three cars. They travel to Las Vegas, Florida, > Mexico commonly. Then complain about how hard they have to work. Have you noticed, too, that it is odd for siblings to share a room anymore? We have had people ask us if we will move, or renovate this house to accomodate the kids. We have three rooms acting as bedrooms now, with this room (our computer, play, craft room) probably becoming our daughter's room when she gets old enough to require a bit more privacy. Right now, though, we have us in one room, two boys in another, and one son and daughter in the third. The kids figure that's just how people live, after all, Mama and Baba are roomies, so why shouldn't they have a roommate, too? Regards, Ranee -- Remove Do Not and Spam to email "She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13 See my Blog at: http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
at Thu, 19 May 2005 00:40:30 GMT in <raneemdonot-834A5E.17403018052005
@news.harbornet.com>, (Ranee Mueller) wrote : >In article >, (Alex Rast) wrote: > >> This is a symptom of a basic social problem: most companies don't pay >> a living wage. Few households can get by on a single income and thus >> there's nobody who can dedicate themselves to the domestic chores. > > I don't buy this at all. There are few people willing to sacrifice >the big house, the nice car, the vacations, the fancy >clothes/makeup/shoes, the dinners out, the movies, the cable, the neat >gadgets, the latest software, the newest trinkets, the _STUFF_ so that >one person can stay home. This is another aspect of the problem but I believe it is probably the smaller part of the issue and is only what springs to mind for most people because the media spin that has been put on the problem has chosen to focus on that group. Yes, there *are* conspicuous consumers but I think the majority of dual-income households do so more out of necessity than upward mobility. The conspicuous consumers receive most of the media attention simply because it's more visibly obvious what's going on in that situation and thus easier for the normal person to believe in from a common-sense POV. A couple struggling but managing to make ends meet on long work hours isn't spectacularly self-evident and doesn't present a clear picture of social ill. It doesn't look like anything is going wrong there until you look long and hard. That's not something you can condense even into a medium-length story in the local paper. There's also probably a buried aspect of our society not wanting to discourage what is seen as virtuous industry. For a couple to work hard in order to make an honest living is seen as morally upright rather than as evidence of a problem. Furthermore, if a society allows that same living to be made with less work it is seen to be decadent. Meanwhile, conspicuous consumption can always be seen to be decadent no matter what the work level necessary to achieve it. So one can always vilify the upwardly mobile. But criticising the social value of hard work will be seen as supplying a ready excuse for slacking. Nobody wants to draw a line between hard work and overwork. Even in the USA, the people who can actually afford any one of the big house, the nice car, the vacations, etc... are decidedly in the minority. Most people have to get by with a much more modest living which, if by third world standards is the lap of luxury, still corresponds to a reasonable rather than an excessive lifestyle. The difficulty we face today is that this reasonable lifestyle is obtained quite frequently only at the expense of unreasonable work hours. It certainly shouldn't be mandatory or expected that one family member stay at home. That would represent more or less a reversion to the male- dominated societies of the past (because, inevitably it would be a greater proportion of the women who would end up being the stay-at-homes). Rather, it should be possible to support a family on combined hours of work that provide realistic time for family members to attend to domestic chores *and* pursue non-work interests without time pressures. -- Alex Rast (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >,
Ranee Mueller > wrote: (snip) > Have you noticed, too, that it is odd for siblings to share a room > anymore? We have had people ask us if we will move, or renovate this > house to accomodate the kids. We have three rooms acting as bedrooms > now, with this room (our computer, play, craft room) probably becoming > our daughter's room when she gets old enough to require a bit more > privacy. Right now, though, we have us in one room, two boys in > another, and one son and daughter in the third. The kids figure that's > just how people live, after all, Mama and Baba are roomies, so why > shouldn't they have a roommate, too? > > Regards, > Ranee <grin> Share a room? A *room*? What a luxury! How about share a bed? In the small house where my mom raised 13 of us, there were three bedrooms up (one was my grandfather's) and one down (my folks'). The other two upstairs rooms were the boys' room and the girls' room. Ten kids slept in those two rooms for a time. Two beds in each room, sometimes there were three sisters in one bed. Short straw got the bed-wetter. (Later found out the problem was compounded by the fact that she was born with only one kidney.) I don't think I slept alone until I was maybe eight or nine. OB Food: Sister Julie has informed me that she will be bringing these (or her version) to the family reunion this summer. We're expecting 60-70 people from three generations. * Exported from MasterCook Mac * Chrusciki (Mom called them crullers) Recipe By : Slovensky Jedlo book, posted to r.f.cooking by Barb Schaller, 5-19-05. Serving Size : 1 Preparation Time :0:00 Categories : Slovensky Recepty Amount Measure Ingredient -- Preparation Method -------- ------------ -------------------------------- 6 egg yolks 2 cups flour 1/2 cup sour cream 1 teaspoon vanilla 1/2 teaspoon salt 2 tablespoons sugar Beat the egg yolks until creamy, adding sugar gradually. Alternately add flour, salt and sour cream and vanilla. Knead dough until it doesn't stick to hands. Divide dough into 3 or 4 parts and roll thin. Cut into strips, about 3" long. Cut slit close to one end and bring the longer end through slit. Heat vegetable oil to 375 degrees and fry quickly. Dust with powdered sugar. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NOTES : Have not made. Recipe is poorly written. _____ -- -Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> 5/8/05. "Are we going to measure, or are we going to cook?" -Food Critic Mimi Sheraton |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 19 May 2005 08:02:48 -0500, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote: >In article >, >Ranee Mueller > wrote: >(snip) >> Have you noticed, too, that it is odd for siblings to share a room >> anymore? We have had people ask us if we will move, or renovate this >> house to accomodate the kids. We have three rooms acting as bedrooms >> now, with this room (our computer, play, craft room) probably becoming >> our daughter's room when she gets old enough to require a bit more >> privacy. Right now, though, we have us in one room, two boys in >> another, and one son and daughter in the third. The kids figure that's >> just how people live, after all, Mama and Baba are roomies, so why >> shouldn't they have a roommate, too? >> >> Regards, >> Ranee > ><grin> Share a room? A *room*? What a luxury! How about share a bed? What about bathrooms? I know people now with houses having more bathrooms than inhabitants! We had one bathroom for the lot of us... Pounding on the door: "WHO'S IN THERE??? HURRY UP!!!!" Sue(tm) Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Curly Sue wrote: > ><grin> Share a room? A *room*? What a luxury! How about share a bed? > > What about bathrooms? I know people now with houses having more > bathrooms than inhabitants! > > We had one bathroom for the lot of us... Pounding on the door: > "WHO'S IN THERE??? HURRY UP!!!!" > > Sue(tm) > Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! Just browsing, but couldn't resist this: We have three people and three bathrooms. I like it that way. Sharing a bed is quite a different matter.  Cathy - who doesn't have to hop from one foot to the other any more.... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Cathyxyz" > wrote in message oups.com... > > Curly Sue wrote: > >> ><grin> Share a room? A *room*? What a luxury! How about share a > bed? >> >> What about bathrooms? I know people now with houses having more >> bathrooms than inhabitants! >> >> We had one bathroom for the lot of us... Pounding on the door: >> "WHO'S IN THERE??? HURRY UP!!!!" >> >> Sue(tm) >> Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! > > Just browsing, but couldn't resist this: > We have three people and three bathrooms. I like it that way. > Sharing a bed is quite a different matter. > Cathy - who doesn't have to hop from one foot to the other any more.... Being one of those persons who have more bathrooms than inhabitants (and having grown up without even one until I was about 13), I have found how important two bathrooms can be. My f-i-l lives in an assisted-living apartment with two bedrooms and one-bath. My husband (and I sometimes) spends a lot of time there caring for him as he is ill with cancer. One bathroom is just not 'convenient' enough for two people usually, as a lot of time is spent in the bathroom, more than one would think. I find myself going to bed without brushing my teeth sometimes because of the nuisance factor, or brushing them in the middle of the night. Dee "... everyone is fond of relating his ... strength, both of his body and his mind, and ... men are on this account a nuisance one to the other. - Spinoza |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Curly Sue wrote:
> What about bathrooms? I know people now with houses having more > bathrooms than inhabitants! > > We had one bathroom for the lot of us... Pounding on the door: > "WHO'S IN THERE??? HURRY UP!!!!" > > Sue(tm) I guess I was fortunate. Growing up in a large house with five bedrooms and five bathrooms. The one bathroom shared by two bedrooms (both girls) was extra large with two sinks and such, with two doors on either end between the two bedrooms. The fifth bathroom was down the hall for a guest loo. I never in my life had to share a bathroom with my parents (thank God.. Mom kept strange rubber tube appliances in there that scared me to death wondering what it was about? <gasp!>) Only when living in a small attic apartment in Europe did I have to share with my own kids. Goomba |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 19 May 2005 12:41:16 -0400, "Dee Randall"
> wrote: > >"Cathyxyz" > wrote in message roups.com... >> >> Curly Sue wrote: >> >>> ><grin> Share a room? A *room*? What a luxury! How about share a >> bed? >>> >>> What about bathrooms? I know people now with houses having more >>> bathrooms than inhabitants! >>> >>> We had one bathroom for the lot of us... Pounding on the door: >>> "WHO'S IN THERE??? HURRY UP!!!!" >>> >>> Sue(tm) >>> Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! >> >> Just browsing, but couldn't resist this: >> We have three people and three bathrooms. I like it that way. >> Sharing a bed is quite a different matter. >> Cathy - who doesn't have to hop from one foot to the other any more.... > >Being one of those persons who have more bathrooms than inhabitants (and >having grown up without even one until I was about 13), I have found how >important two bathrooms can be. My f-i-l lives in an assisted-living >apartment with two bedrooms and one-bath. My husband (and I sometimes) >spends a lot of time there caring for him as he is ill with cancer. One >bathroom is just not 'convenient' enough for two people usually, as a lot of >time is spent in the bathroom, more than one would think. I find myself >going to bed without brushing my teeth sometimes because of the nuisance >factor, or brushing them in the middle of the night. >Dee I'm not arguing against having as many bathrooms or bedrooms as you want. Of course it's convenient even for people who are not suffering from cancer, chronic diarrhea, terminal narsicism, or their visitors. I know how much time people can spend in the bathroom; I had brothers. I'd like another bathroom too... and another dishwasher and a pantry. I'm not suggesting that you all share the same bed either. Just pointing out that in addition to having to share beds/bedrooms, sometimes multiple people had to get by with -oh shock!- one bathroom and my how things have changed. Sue(tm) Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dee Randall"
> wrote: (snip) > I find myself going to bed without brushing my teeth sometimes > because of the nuisance factor, or brushing them in the middle of the > night. > Dee Two words: Kitchen sink. "-) -- -Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> 5/8/05. "Are we going to measure, or are we going to cook?" -Food Critic Mimi Sheraton |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Dee Randall" > > wrote: > (snip) >> I find myself going to bed without brushing my teeth sometimes >> because of the nuisance factor, or brushing them in the middle of the >> night. > >> Dee > > Two words: Kitchen sink. "-) > -- > -Barb I didn't think of this -- should have! Thanks,Dee |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Curly Sue wrote:
> I'm not arguing against having as many bathrooms or bedrooms as you > want. Of course it's convenient even for people who are not suffering > from cancer, chronic diarrhea, terminal narsicism, or their visitors. > I know how much time people can spend in the bathroom; I had brothers. > > I'd like another bathroom too... and another dishwasher and a pantry. > > I'm not suggesting that you all share the same bed either. Just > pointing out that in addition to having to share beds/bedrooms, > sometimes multiple people had to get by with -oh shock!- one bathroom > and my how things have changed. > > Sue(tm) > Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! Sue, forgive me (again) for misinterpreting your <grin> about sharing bathrooms etc. I thought you were joking. Of course having cancer, chronic diarrhea, is nothing to joke about. Not so sure about *narssicism*, though. Had to look it up on dictionary.reference.com. 1. Excessive love or admiration of oneself. See Synonyms at conceit. 2. A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem. 3. Erotic pleasure derived from contemplation or admiration of one's own body or self, especially as a fixation on or a regression to an infantile stage of development. 4. The attribute of the human psyche charactized by admiration of oneself but within normal limits. Don't thing it's terminal. I was hoping to share a joke with you.... Mind you I didn't know that sharing a bed with your spouse/SO was a crime. Am I mistaken once again? LOL Cathy - who was forntunate enough to be an only child and only had two kids. -- I don't suffer from insanity - I enjoy every minute of it |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 19 May 2005 20:07:16 +0200, cathyxyz > wrote:
>Curly Sue wrote: >> I'm not arguing against having as many bathrooms or bedrooms as you >> want. Of course it's convenient even for people who are not suffering >> from cancer, chronic diarrhea, terminal narsicism, or their visitors. >> I know how much time people can spend in the bathroom; I had brothers. >> >> I'd like another bathroom too... and another dishwasher and a pantry. >> >> I'm not suggesting that you all share the same bed either. Just >> pointing out that in addition to having to share beds/bedrooms, >> sometimes multiple people had to get by with -oh shock!- one bathroom >> and my how things have changed. >> >> Sue(tm) >> Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! > >Sue, forgive me (again) for misinterpreting your <grin> about sharing >bathrooms etc. I thought you were joking. Of course having cancer, >chronic diarrhea, is nothing to joke about. > >Not so sure about *narssicism*, though. Had to look it up on >dictionary.reference.com. > > 1. Excessive love or admiration of oneself. See Synonyms at conceit. > 2. A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, >lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem. > 3. Erotic pleasure derived from contemplation or admiration of one's >own body or self, especially as a fixation on or a regression to an >infantile stage of development. > 4. The attribute of the human psyche charactized by admiration of >oneself but within normal limits. > >Don't thing it's terminal. It was for the original, Narcissus. Come to think about it, you remind me of Echo. :> >I was hoping to share a joke with you.... Mind you I didn't know that >sharing a bed with your spouse/SO was a crime. Am I mistaken once again? LOL To be honest, I don't know what you're talking about! I didn't respond to your post so there was nothing to interpret about sharing a bed is a crime, etc. >Cathy - who was forntunate enough to be an only child and only had two kids. I am fortunate enough to have great brothers and sisters. Sharing a single bathroom for the lot of us was a humorous annoyance lost in the fun of a being part of a big family. The important thing is to recognize that we are both fortunate in our own ways, right? Sue(tm) Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Curly Sue wrote: > > The important thing is to recognize that we are both fortunate in our > own ways, right? > > Sue(tm) > Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! At last, we agree on something! Cathy |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dee Randall wrote: > "Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message > ... > > In article >, "Dee Randall" > > > wrote: > > (snip) > >> I find myself going to bed without brushing my teeth sometimes > >> because of the nuisance factor, or brushing them in the middle of the > >> night. > > > >> Dee > > > > Two words: Kitchen sink. "-) > > -- > > -Barb > > I didn't think of this -- should have! > Thanks,Dee Out in the yard works too - the problem is the bathroom hogs are probably holding your toothbrush hostage. Susan B. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
And how far dis you have to walk to school in waist-high snow?
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article . com>,
" > wrote: > And how far dis you have to walk to school in waist-high snow? I didn't. I don't remember walking to elementary school; I don't remember taking the bus. Dunno. By virtue of the fact that my community (St. Anthony Village, MN) didn't have its own high school, I attended Jr & Sr High at the University of Minnesota Laboratory School of Secondary Education -- U-High. Located on the campus. A fabulous place -- training ground for some of the U's best College of Education students. That stuff called "New Math"? That's what I did from 1957 to 1960. I didin't know it was anything special. We were a test group for the School Mathematics Study Group. I was bused there for four years and then I rode with friends the last two years when St. Anthony had a high school and some of us elected to stay at U-High. My best story about the U's education system is about a guy in our class who was educated by the U of M for 21 years! Starting when he was 3 years old and attended their preschool. Then their elementary school. High School. Institute of Technology. Graduate school. I've heard that St. Anthony students were chosen to make up 1/3 of the school so that the folks could test their curriculum on "average" kids. We did quite well. :-) I thought all schools were like that -- what did I know? I just went to school. I was probably 40 before I found out that my kids' classrooms had more than 25 students in the room. My classes were small. What did I know? But I digress. Uphill through the snow? Both ways? No, those were my older siblings. :-) OB Food: Supper tonight is the Spicy Chicken Tortilla Soup that Nancy Young has posted here. At least that what the plan is. Assumes I won't eat too much before mealtime. I didn't thicken it and I don't have any tortillas to top it with. * Exported from MasterCook Mac * Spicy Chicken Tortilla Soup Recipe By : Nancy Young gets the credit Serving Size : 1 Preparation Time :00:35 Categories : Soups Amount Measure Ingredient -- Preparation Method -------- ------------ -------------------------------- 1 chopped medium onion (about 1 cup) and 2 minced garlic cloves (about 2 tsps) in 2 tablespoons vegetable oil 4 ounces can chopped green chiles 15 ounces can Italian-style stewed tomatoes (chopped and with their own juice) 4 cups chicken broth 1 teaspoon lemon pepper 2 teaspoons worcestershire sauce 1 teaspoon chili powder 1 teaspoon ground cumin 1/2 teaspoon hot sauce 4 tablespoons flour 1/2 cup water 1 pound boneless skinless chicken breasts -- cut into small cubes 1/3 cup non-fat sour cream 4 corn tortillas In a large saucepan, cook the onion and garlic in the oil over low heat for 5 minutes until onion is softened. Add next group of ingredients. Simmer for 20 minutes. In a small bowl, combine flour with water and whisk into soup. Bring the soup back to a boil and simmer for 5 minutes. Add 1 pound skinless boneless chicken breasts, cut into small cubes. Simmer for 5 minutes. Stir in 1/3 cup non-fat sour cream, salt, and pepper to taste. Cut 4 store-bought corn tortillas into 1/4 inch strips. Lay them on a baking sheet with nonstick vegetable oil spray. Bake in a 400 degree oven for 10 minutes or until they are lightly toasted and crispy. Sprinkle lightly with salt if desired. Garnish strips across the top of the finished soup with fresh coriander. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NOTES : Nancy Young has posted this to r.f.c. more than once, I think. Originally from Good Morning America's Joan Lunden. Made it 1-4-05 -- a rousing success. I used another 1-1/2 cups chicken broth and about 12 ounces of cooked chicken -- it was plenty of chicken meat in the soup. Also added a tablespoon of lime juice and more hot sauce than specified--used some of George Shirley's wicked stuff. It was just hot enough! _____ -- -Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> 5/8/05. "Are we going to measure, or are we going to cook?" -Food Critic Mimi Sheraton |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >,
(Alex Rast) wrote: > at Thu, 19 May 2005 00:40:30 GMT in > <raneemdonot-834A5E.17403018052005 @news.harbornet.com>, > (Ranee Mueller) wrote > : > > >In article >, > (Alex Rast) wrote: > > > >> This is a symptom of a basic social problem: most companies don't > >> pay a living wage. Few households can get by on a single income > >> and thus there's nobody who can dedicate themselves to the > >> domestic chores. > > > > I don't buy this at all. There are few people willing to > > sacrifice > >the big house, the nice car, the vacations, the fancy > >clothes/makeup/shoes, the dinners out, the movies, the cable, the > >neat gadgets, the latest software, the newest trinkets, the _STUFF_ > >so that one person can stay home. > > This is another aspect of the problem but I believe it is probably > the smaller part of the issue and is only what springs to mind for > most people because the media spin that has been put on the problem > has chosen to focus on that group. Yes, there *are* conspicuous > consumers but I think the majority of dual-income households do so > more out of necessity than upward mobility. That may have been true once, but I believe it is in the decline. I do not base my opinion on media spin, as I have been out of the loop of the media for about five years, and had limited my access to it long before that. There is a myth that in the US families cannot afford to have a parent at home, that a family cannot have children and a parent stay home. This is not true. It may be a struggle, but it is not impossible. It is less difficult than it is made out to be as well. My husband thinks I should teach classes on economizing and meal planning and grocery shopping. More knowledge of those things would be of great help to families wishing to have a parent at home. When families with two incomes talk about how expensive it is to hire a nanny these days, yet say that they cannot afford to have mom or dad at home (yes, I have witnessed these discussions), they are deluding themselves. When they have a vacation club and go on vacations and cruises several times a year, but bemoan their lot in life at not being able to stay home, they are deluding themselves. When the mothers go get their hair and nails done weekly and the fathers go out for lunch each day, and they both go out for drinks after work or dinner after work at least once a week, spend money on all the work clothes, makeup, car expenses, other commuting expenses, and the stuff that they acquire, then add on childcare costs to that, and say they can't afford to have a parent at home, they are deluding themselves. Most of the complaint about not being able to afford staying at home that I hear about (either in person or on the computer) comes from people who in other discussions talk about all their neat new toys, shopping trips, vacations, the car they are shopping for, the new restaurant they tried recently, etc. The people who are truly struggling to make ends meet, IME, are more frugal, have grandma watching the kids (so they aren't spending all the money on the high class day care), and go without quite a bit so they can be home with their families as much as possible. Something always has to give. This is one of my peeves. I know how possible it is to live on very little. I know how our culture makes it seem impossible. When people ask us if we are concerned about how much money it costs to raise children, we just answer that we'd spend the money whether we had the kids or not, we just spend it on our kids now. Our priority was having me at home, having the kids in private school and eating well at home. Because those were our priorities, we made the sacrifices necessary to accomplish them. Sometimes, we are still left wondering where the school money is going to come from, as this is a small school with no scholarships/hardship grants available, but we do it. This means that we give up some of the aforementioned stuff, or buy/do it very rarely. It seems to me that people starting out in families want to have what they saw their parents have. They forget that their parents started out much poorer, and went without much before they were able to have all the nice things they did. People my age (I'm almost 30) seem to want it all now, and that makes it harder for them to sacrifice, even for their children. It bothers me that they blame finances for their circumstances, when it is a matter of setting priorities and doing what is necessary to achieve a goal. I wish those same people would stop talking about how being at home is all they want to do, then making all the choices that force them to be out of the home. I know a woman who binge spends and then whines about how now she won't be able to stay at home. She does not see the relationship between her shopping habits and their financial need. They make at least three times what we make, go to amazing political balls and events, have fancy vacations, and truly can afford to spend a bit more here and there than we do, without sweating it, but it isn't enough for them, their credit card balances are astounding. Meanwhile she talks about how important it is to her to be at home, and won't do any of the hard work it takes to be there. Most of the US is not in that bottom rung of people who are both working at minimum wage jobs, barely scraping the barrel. Most people are "middle class" and have been raised in an environment that teaches them that their personal happiness and pleasure is more important than their family. These same people will put in hours upon hours to succeed at work, but won't sacrifice the time or energy to succeed at home. Then they blame everyone else. That has nothing to do with a minimum wage which was never intended to support a family in the first place. Regards, Ranee -- Remove Do Not and Spam to email "She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13 See my Blogs at: http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/ http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 19 May 2005 22:22:46 -0700, Ranee Mueller
> wrote: >In article >, (Alex Rast) wrote: > >> at Thu, 19 May 2005 00:40:30 GMT in >> <raneemdonot-834A5E.17403018052005 @news.harbornet.com>, >> (Ranee Mueller) wrote >> : >> >> >In article >, >> (Alex Rast) wrote: >> > >> >> This is a symptom of a basic social problem: most companies don't >> >> pay a living wage. Few households can get by on a single income >> >> and thus there's nobody who can dedicate themselves to the >> >> domestic chores. >> > >> > I don't buy this at all. There are few people willing to >> > sacrifice >> >the big house, the nice car, the vacations, the fancy >> >clothes/makeup/shoes, the dinners out, the movies, the cable, the >> >neat gadgets, the latest software, the newest trinkets, the _STUFF_ >> >so that one person can stay home. >> >> This is another aspect of the problem but I believe it is probably >> the smaller part of the issue and is only what springs to mind for >> most people because the media spin that has been put on the problem >> has chosen to focus on that group. Yes, there *are* conspicuous >> consumers but I think the majority of dual-income households do so >> more out of necessity than upward mobility. > > That may have been true once, but I believe it is in the decline. I >do not base my opinion on media spin, as I have been out of the loop of >the media for about five years, and had limited my access to it long >before that. Then what do you base it on? Observations of the people you know. <snip> > When families with two incomes talk about how expensive it is to hire >a nanny these days, yet say that they cannot afford to have mom or dad >at home (yes, I have witnessed these discussions), they are deluding >themselves. When they have a vacation club and go on vacations and >cruises several times a year, but bemoan their lot in life at not being >able to stay home, they are deluding themselves. When the mothers go >get their hair and nails done weekly and the fathers go out for lunch >each day, and they both go out for drinks after work or dinner after >work at least once a week, spend money on all the work clothes, makeup, >car expenses, other commuting expenses, and the stuff that they acquire, >then add on childcare costs to that, and say they can't afford to have a >parent at home, they are deluding themselves. Who are these people you're hanging out with??? I don't know anyone like that. > > I know how possible it is to live on very >little. I know how our culture makes it seem impossible. It's not just our culture. The desire for more is a human trait. When people >ask us if we are concerned about how much money it costs to raise >children, we just answer that we'd spend the money whether we had the >kids or not, we just spend it on our kids now. Our priority was having >me at home, having the kids in private school and eating well at home. >Because those were our priorities, we made the sacrifices necessary to >accomplish them. Sometimes, we are still left wondering where the >school money is going to come from, as this is a small school with no >scholarships/hardship grants available, but we do it. This means that >we give up some of the aforementioned stuff, or buy/do it very rarely. That's fine as long as life works out for you. I know several families for whom conditions were such (divorce, disability) that they were darn lucky that the other parent had a good job. These people didn't have vacation clubs, weekly manicures, or two martini lunches (neither do I, dammit). They do/did without stuff like that because they also were providing for their children and concerned about having to support themselves in retirement, when the kids are gone. Some are also invested in their careers so that they will have something interesting and rewarding to do when the kids move out, and yes, have a comfortable life. > It seems to me that people starting out in families want to have what >they saw their parents have. They forget that their parents started out >much poorer, and went without much before they were able to have all the >nice things they did. >People my age (I'm almost 30) seem to want it all >now, and that makes it harder for them to sacrifice, even for their >children. That's true. > It bothers me that they blame finances for their >circumstances, when it is a matter of setting priorities and doing what >is necessary to achieve a goal. I wish those same people would stop >talking about how being at home is all they want to do, then making all >the choices that force them to be out of the home. It is entirely possible that they would like to stay at home but not enough to give up their careers. I would like to travel more, but I "can't" do that either. Yes, it's my priority. I have to admit I don't complain incessantly about it, which your friends seem to do, but I do envy my friends who are able to do so. > Most of the US is not in that bottom rung of people who are both >working at minimum wage jobs, barely scraping the barrel. Most people >are "middle class" and have been raised in an environment that teaches >them that their personal happiness and pleasure is more important than >their family. These same people will put in hours upon hours to succeed >at work, but won't sacrifice the time or energy to succeed at home. They can get fired at work. Listen, since you don't read the papers, you should realize it's brutal out there for those middle class people in all sectors of the economy. People don't have the pension security they used to (even defined-benefit plans are shaky), airlines (and, thus, their employees) are in trouble. Look up the recent news on "BRAC" and find out why people are upset. Find out about the effect of off-shore outsourcing. There is a lot of uncertainty out there and having both parents working provides a buffer against financial disaster. Burying your head in the sand and claiming that it's "media spin" or that it's their choice may make you more confident of your opinion, but it doesn't change things for others. I certainly agree with you that people should live within their means and adjust their expectations accordingly. It is aggravating to hear people complain about things that seem to be their own choices. But it is also aggravating to hear someone paint all families with two working parents as having a "choice" about working or staying home. Yes, it's a choice, a necessary choice for many if not most people. It's not just about the 18-20 years to raise children, it's about responsibility for your own life. >Then they blame everyone else. That has nothing to do with a minimum >wage which was never intended to support a family in the first place. The real thing that you are being affected by are insensitive friends who complain about their situation in front of you with little appreciation for you. Have a heart-to-heart discussion with them, telling them that their complaining is eating you up. Sue(tm) Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Alex Rast" > wrote in message ... > at Thu, 19 May 2005 00:40:30 GMT in <raneemdonot-834A5E.17403018052005 > @news.harbornet.com>, (Ranee Mueller) wrote > : > >>In article >, (Alex Rast) wrote: >> >>> This is a symptom of a basic social problem: most companies don't pay >>> a living wage. Few households can get by on a single income and thus >>> there's nobody who can dedicate themselves to the domestic chores. >> >> I don't buy this at all. There are few people willing to sacrifice >>the big house, the nice car, the vacations, the fancy >>clothes/makeup/shoes, the dinners out, the movies, the cable, the neat >>gadgets, the latest software, the newest trinkets, the _STUFF_ so that >>one person can stay home. > > This is another aspect of the problem but I believe it is probably the > smaller part of the issue and is only what springs to mind for most people > because the media spin that has been put on the problem has chosen to > focus > on that group. Yes, there *are* conspicuous consumers but I think the > majority of dual-income households do so more out of necessity than upward > mobility. Sure, out of what they believe to be necessity. Is a TV a necessity? Cable? How many cars? Cigarettes? Restaurants? Meat? Air Conditioning? Multiple bathrooms? a bedroom for each child? Vacations? Long Commutes? Movies? Sports Tickets? > > The conspicuous consumers receive most of the media attention simply > because it's more visibly obvious what's going on in that situation and > thus easier for the normal person to believe in from a common-sense POV. A > couple struggling but managing to make ends meet on long work hours isn't > spectacularly self-evident and doesn't present a clear picture of social > ill. It doesn't look like anything is going wrong there until you look > long > and hard. That's not something you can condense even into a medium-length > story in the local paper. > > There's also probably a buried aspect of our society not wanting to > discourage what is seen as virtuous industry. For a couple to work hard in > order to make an honest living is seen as morally upright rather than as > evidence of a problem. Furthermore, if a society allows that same living > to > be made with less work it is seen to be decadent. Meanwhile, conspicuous > consumption can always be seen to be decadent no matter what the work > level > necessary to achieve it. So one can always vilify the upwardly mobile. But > criticising the social value of hard work will be seen as supplying a > ready > excuse for slacking. Nobody wants to draw a line between hard work and > overwork. > > Even in the USA, the people who can actually afford any one of the big > house, the nice car, the vacations, etc... are decidedly in the minority. > Most people have to get by with a much more modest living which, if by > third world standards is the lap of luxury, still corresponds to a > reasonable rather than an excessive lifestyle. The difficulty we face > today > is that this reasonable lifestyle is obtained quite frequently only at the > expense of unreasonable work hours. You don't apparently agree that "reasonable lifestyle" has been redefined upwards significantly over the years. It certainly has here in Minnesota. Here is a suggestion. In your town, locate a middle class area where the houses were built after the war. Look at what the houses were. Now find a similar area from the 60's, 80's, and today. Or look at the size and amenities of the median new house and compare to the same in the 50's. > > It certainly shouldn't be mandatory or expected that one family member > stay > at home. That would represent more or less a reversion to the male- > dominated societies of the past (because, inevitably it would be a greater > proportion of the women who would end up being the stay-at-homes). Rather, > it should be possible to support a family on combined hours of work that > provide realistic time for family members to attend to domestic chores > *and* pursue non-work interests without time pressures. And how many combined work hours would you expect that to be? You want to raise a family on two part time jobs? > > -- > Alex Rast > > (remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message ... > In article . com>, > " > wrote: > >> And how far dis you have to walk to school in waist-high snow? > > I didn't. I don't remember walking to elementary school; I don't > remember taking the bus. Dunno. By virtue of the fact that my > community (St. Anthony Village, MN) didn't have its own high school, I > attended Jr & Sr High at the University of Minnesota Laboratory School > of Secondary Education -- U-High. Located on the campus. A fabulous > place -- training ground for some of the U's best College of Education > students. That stuff called "New Math"? That's what I did from 1957 to > 1960. I didin't know it was anything special. We were a test group for > the School Mathematics Study Group. I was bused there for four years > and then I rode with friends the last two years when St. Anthony had a > high school and some of us elected to stay at U-High. My best story > about the U's education system is about a guy in our class who was > educated by the U of M for 21 years! Starting when he was 3 years old > and attended their preschool. Then their elementary school. High > School. Institute of Technology. Graduate school. I've heard that > St. Anthony students were chosen to make up 1/3 of the school so that > the folks could test their curriculum on "average" kids. We did quite > well. :-) I thought all schools were like that -- what did I know? I > just went to school. I was probably 40 before I found out that my kids' > classrooms had more than 25 students in the room. My classes were > small. What did I know? > > But I digress. Uphill through the snow? Both ways? No, those were my > older siblings. :-) I work with a guy who spent his whole education at the U. He probably graduated in 62 or 63 from U HS. Drop me an email if you want his name. decoding my address is easy. del cecchi |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Metabolic Cooking - Fat Loss Cookbook | General Cooking | |||
| Metabolic typing | General Cooking | |||
| metabolic syndrome is tied to diet soda, PL Lutsey, LM Steffen, J | Vegan | |||
| Macho Chef - Male Answer Syndrome - Book Review (click on Male Answer Syndrome) | General Cooking | |||
| Treating Metabolic Syndrome | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
